The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of relevant legal provisions and judgments to determine the legality of auction sale proceedings and the actions of the Recovery Officer.

ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

The petitioner in the first writ petition above is a firm and the petitioners in the other two writ petitions are its partners, engaged in the business of exporting garments. The petitioners in the 2nd and 3rd writ petition above are husband and wife.

.2. The petitioners availed packing credits and cash credit facilities aggregating a limit of Rs.60 lakhs on execution of necessary documents and on the security of immovable property by way of equitable mortgage and hypothecation of stocks. They have deposited the title deeds of the properties on 111. 1998 and 12. 1998 respectively with interest to create an equitable mortgage for the loan facility granted in favour of the firm. Subsequently, on their application, the first respondent Bank sanctioned packing credit facility and cash credit facility aggregating a sum of Rs.75 lakhs on execution of necessary documents on 24. 1999. Subsequently, the first respondent Bank sanctioned placing credit facility and cash credit facility, aggregating a sum of Rs.72,50,000/= on execution of necessary instruments in favour of the Bank and on extension of equitable mortgage on 20.3.2000. Thereupon, the petitioners have failed to repay the loan amount. Therefore, the first respondent Bank filed O.A.No.63 of 2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs.81,18,575/= with subsequent interest till date of payment with costs and draw the recovery certificate for the same. The said suit was decreed exparte on 312. 2003, since in spite of notices, the petitioners did not appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal issued the Recovery Certificate on 33. 2004 and the properties were brought to sale by the Recovery Officer by public auction on 30.9.2004.

3. Thepetitioners filed M.A.Nos.55 and 56 of 2004 for setting aside the exparte order and for stay of recovery proceedings, but, as the conditional order imposed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal was not complied with by the petitioners, the said applications were dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioners represented to the first respondent Bank that B.Raja, their son, filed O.S.No.645 of 2005 before the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and another son Arun Prasad filed O.S.No.19 of 2005 before the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu for permanent injunction restraining the Bank to auction the suit property. In the said O.S.No.19 of 2005, while the petitioners are impleaded as defendants 1 and 2, the above said B.Raja was impleaded as third defendant and minor Aravind was impleaded as 4th defendant and the first respondent Bank was impleaded as 5th defendant. In O.S.No.645 of 2005, a conditional order was passed by the learned XVI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, directing the plaintiff/petitioner therein (B.Raja) to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the Bank in a weeks time and since the said conditional order was not complied with, the interim injunction granted earlier was not extended. In both the above said suits, the contention putforth on the part of sons of the petitioners is that the properties in question are ancestral properties and they want partition of the same.

4. Thereupon, the Recovery Officer brought the mortgage property for auction on 21. 2006. The first petitioner Mr.Balachander filed C.R.P.No.144 of 2006 to set aside the auction sale proceedings in DRC.65 of 2004 in O.A.No.63 of 2003, including the Sale certificate dated 112. 2005 and this Court, by the order dated 21. 2006, has dismissed the said petition, on the ground that the auction sale notice was issued on 12. 2005 and the petitioner, without questioning the same, has approached the High Court, after 11 months of the issuance of Sale certificate.

.5. Then, on 21. 2006, auction was conducted, wherein the second respondent was declared as the successful bidder for Rs.44,50,000/=. Immediately, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2006 before the Recovery Officer to set aside the sale and stay the confirmation o